Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-10-31
MR. HIGHER COURTS.
# Decisions Rendered 81
|sJstPsFo ssut Sitting OF the Higher
iSF Courts at Tylers
u.,ded Down In a Number
,osi01s Co,t.sted Gases - Some
q New Ruhpgs.
an NJ the Gazette

B TILSh, nv ys. AT. Pollock appeal
p C S.+jon. This suit was brought for
bon h' assTv Of q valise and its con-
be ~ ~,Ins Of same. It appears that
ip9'i's :, : tbs sleeping car from Marshall
oIoS - He entered the car st Mar
~ t,fipg with him his vaIise, con- n
~, .a men articles as were necessary
Si'L .-s.rsIler, deposited said valise on the
'4I ,.bp smoking room. 1t appears
i'a' ~, " Dorter knew when he deposited
tb'i IlS S Elise % flor Of the smoking
be s'' A. Terrell the train was delayed
TO0n. Int M If wreck. Appellee went to
O scG ;ur. m office to ascertain how long
DE ie-ss st would be delayed. He was
DE us .5ort time, slds when he came
.0as s,s T.,i.e vas gone. The cause was
boz ~ vithout jury and Iudg-
ima Tendered for appellee. Hello:
nsn .,,co car company is just
Ponsfhle az any common carrier
3 lSi t,iinrs to perform the duties which
i0I ~, I'm mon common carriers in rela-
=" ~ the bsggsge of a passenger which
:. ~. y oigen into the exclusive custody OF
" trier "WhiIe sleeping car COM
y . Ci,' mot liable as common carrier or
by Iasoener, yet it is its clear duty
-. .aI ressonsb.e care to guard the pas
~, from theft, and If through the
.tt II such care the personal eff-cts OF
W, suca as he might reasonably
r, Titb 6in, are STOLEN, the company
A r!,Io therefor. Such a rule is re-
. tag hv public policy and by the true
est. .a, OF both the passengers and the
. -r snd the decided weight Of
. '1S supports it," rs Am. aud Eng.
II ? cases $50 81 Ina, 474-5 Penn,
r. A psssepger who retains exclusive
.,,1,roI + MS baggage cannot recover I'M
Hs.s the csrrier is leg gent The court
Il ",.5 the evidsLce and decided tnst the
-,mn,ny was negligent, and are not
E.,sn.rsd TO ssV such AIDING was unau
#'.orizsi. Affirmed, StaytOn j.
4 lanes T B ,yktn ct. al vs. Posenfeld &
H. tai from Marion. The suit was
s.arsbt TO foreclose g moEtgsge on lot
s 4 nine logs. The logs were found in the
8 s,sspssion Of one Todd aud Norwood,
s me having 800 sOd the other 200 logs.
& lDpelIee sequestrated the logs and they
T.fe repleved by said Todd and Nor
Mood. Appellee recovered Judgment and
Enclosure of mortgage in court below.
81DDallsnts moved in the court below to
sequestrstion bond because same
In not suffl GENTLY describe property
gOuegtrsted. Following was descrip-
SITUATED ia Marion county IN
possession Of defendant, each marked
with s cross on the end averaging
zirOm Il to 30 feet in length and foot to
b inches in diameter and containing IN
the aggregate 465, $50 feet in measure
znent." Held; A sufficient description
I bud the court did not err in SO holding
kIt is urgently cOntended that the mort
gsge is fOid as to third persons, because
BE mortgage Of standing TIRE es was
bot good IS chattel mortgage.
Dc IS very generally held that a mortgage
& bt trees TO be cut aud severed from the
freehold, or mortgage Of growing tim,
Der by one vino has purchased the same,
10 De cut and severed from the freehold,
GmOrtgsge Of per olSl properly, snO
pill aViil the mortgage if it be recorded
*bSs chat ell mortgage Jones oa Chattel
AOT;g2ge, and cases cltad in notes , aud
ACopy Of the mortgage executed By
BoyEin 10 appeliees was fled in the Office
p the county clerk, instead of the origin.
and its Introduction in evidence was
pol cted to on the ground th2t it did no:
PpeaF from the copy that the Original
pas duly acknowledged. Held; The
SAtuta does NOS require this, and the
ins was admissable as evidence. At
Fined. StaVtoU,J J.
Land n R r Co. VS. Charles Gold
sfg; sppssl from Bowie. Appellee
p'ougat this suit 10 the iurt below &c
lsCOTer Of appellants damages to his
lOneSIead, Ia me city of Texsrkana, g.
sssa to have been caused by the
EUasIFoctlon Of appellants railway
Elols the street in front Of his property
1ptFiiee NED sn amended petition st the
u..ooef term, 1886, describing is prop
- IS sfusted On the south west corner
oIOCK ~ fronting ON Ward street. 81
-s spring term appellee announced resty
j. u!ai' and appellant having obtained
80 u me Court, then fled sn amended
1--we The plainut, by leave of the
Iis ss.'' llen nled his second amended pc
I1a' ID which ne described his property
f.. NC north half Ct block "A, fronting on
AZ street The defendant then asked
a.ooallnuance, which being overruled
actp ed. Held: The Court did not
fas Il PRINTING plaintiff to file his sec
amended petition Although tue
h,v aug pFescrlbes that "the pleadings
my. Ve amended upon such terms SIS the
f. MY nAy prescrib', at any time before
4 n announcement dA Of reEdy for trial, dnd
st,rs-osLeaIIer, " we hold that this is mere
H. I~s%CIoFy, and that it is not error fol
sop,s OuuFt, in the exercise of 8
Ia t = discretion to allow the plead
~ " De amended, even after the
81 Tsr raS commenced I61 Texas, I55;
Id NJ, 4l0i % Texas, 10 ] The courI
IN h. GIT IN oyerruling be continuance,
80 'T NJ asked On the ground of sur
5eIiti,. me change in the second AMENDED
lslIsS was not such a one as could be
fsrc. new cause of seton. The evi
La iS,r 70 damages is conflicting and
ia 6ot :. aS'l0g passed upon the same, we
etpmaste cslled upon to disturb the
P,s, y: Affirmed. Gaines, j.
Is S.. Aile Railway COMPANY Va. John
sss en-, appeal from Marion. Appellee
z,iya. .I.oi?yed as 8 Waterman to q pile
sbsd Ia IAN and engine on appellants
bscsns apu brings this suit for damages
.Rgof, VI Injuries received by the burst
q tbs so ool!er. He recovered judgment
d aOuEt below. The deposition OF
sss tstea An OF appellants repair shops
ktrop..nn. snd In answer to . cross in
q The Guy WAS the engineer in charge
kltfn Lyme OF the pile driver compe-
epuosaI] answered 81 think not." Whea